Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 169 (MP)

JANKI PRASAD GARG v. STATE OF M P

2009-02-05

R.S.JHA

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner has filed this petition claiming the following reliefs: (i) This Hon ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the salary at Rs. 4055/- per month to the petitioner as was being paid prior to 2006 in place of Rs. 243 8/ -. (ii) The respondents be also directed to pay the arrears of salary which has been deducted from the salary of the petitioner with interest. (iii) The respondents be also directed to pay salary with retrospective effect and other benefits. (iv) This Hon ble Court be further pleased to pass any such other orders as this Hon ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case. ( 2. ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner v was working in the Water Resources Department as Semi Skilled daily wager, a previous occasion, had approached this Court by filing WP (s) No. 152/04 wh was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider his case regularization. As nothing was done by the respondents, the petitioner filed WP no. 2573/06 (s) and this petition was also disposed of by order dated 4-8-2006 relying upon the order passed by this Court in WP No. 3838/05 (s) (Daddi Lal yadav v. State of M. P and others) in the following terms: in W. P. No. 3838/05 (s) (Daddi Lai Yadav v. State of M. P. and others) and other writ petitions as per common order dated 3-8-2006, on due consideration of the decisions of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others-2006 AIR SCW 1991 - (2006) 4 SCC 1 , State of Punjab and others v. Devinder Singh and others (1998) 9 SCC 595 , sate of Punjab v. Talwinder Singh and others (2003) 11 SCC 776 and decision of Division Bench of this Court in State of M. P. and others v. Pqdam Chand and others 2006 (2) MPLJ 397 for the reasons stated in the common order, this Court has held that - 1. The petitioners who are appointed before 31. 12. 1988 or after 13-12-1988 are not entitled for regularization of their services. 2. The petitioners who are appointed before 31. 12. 1988 or after 13-12-1988 are not entitled for regularization of their services. 2. The petitioners who have been appointed prior to 31-12-1988 are to be given the salary at the lowest grade of the employees of their cadre in the concerned department within six months. 3. The petitioners shall be given all relaxation for the period they have rendered the services as and when the vacancies are advertised. 4. The respondents also to consider whether the benefit of additional marks to be given to the petitioners for the experience which they possess while filling up of the vacancies as per the rules. 5. The petitioners, as prayed are free to approach the labour Court for the purpose of classification in case they are covered under the relevant Industrial Law as may be applicable. 6. The respondents to initiate process for regular recruitment as directed in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others 2006 AIR SCW 1991 7. The respondents to consider the direction issued by the apex Court in paragraph 44 of the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others 2006 AIR scw 1991. This petition being similar is disposed of in terms of the said order. No cost. " ( 3. ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the aforesaid direction, the respondents authorities instead of paying him minimum the scale along with the daily allowance totaling a sum of Rs. 4055/- as indicated in Annexure P-4, have now started paying the petitioner Rs. 2438/-which is the minimum wage prescribed for a semi skilled daily wager. The ) contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid act of the respondents is contrary to law as the petitioner in view of the order passed by this Court in the previous petitions filed by him is entitled to the pay Rs. 4055/- and the amount being paid to him cannot be reduced to Rs. 2438/-per month which is the rate prescribed for a semiskilled daily wager specifically in view of the order passed by this Court on 4-8-2006 in WP no. 2576/06 (s) which was disposed of in the light of the order passed in the case of Daddi Lal Yadav v. State ofm. 2438/-per month which is the rate prescribed for a semiskilled daily wager specifically in view of the order passed by this Court on 4-8-2006 in WP no. 2576/06 (s) which was disposed of in the light of the order passed in the case of Daddi Lal Yadav v. State ofm. P. to the relief sought by him and is entitled to be paid only on the rate prescribed by the Collector for semi skilled labour. It is submitted that subsequent to the decision of this Court in W. P. No. 3838/05 (s) (Daddi Lal Yadav v. State ofm. P and others), the Indore Bench of this Court, relying upon the aforesaid judgment, had passed further directions ; including direction for regularization and grant of minimum pay in the corresponding scale for the post or cadre in which they were working in the case of Rakesh s/o Parashuram Yadav and others v. State of M. P. and others 2007 (1) MPLJ 133, in the following terms in para 22: "i) The daily wages employees, engaged even prior to 31-12-1988 in the State of M. P. , are not entitled for their regularization in the light of the policy dated 9-1-1990 or on the basis of plea of discrimination or otherwise, except who falls within purview of direction of para (ii) below. ii) The daily wages employees, who were appointed, irregularly (not illegally) prior to 31-12-1988 on a sanctioned vacant post possessing qualification / eligibility and have continuously worked without intervention of the Court are entitled for their consideration of regularisation in view of discussion made hereinabove by adopting one time measure. The State Government or the instrumentalities of the State shall take recourse for such employees within a period of six months from today in the fight of the observations made in para 53 in the case of Umadevi (supra ). iii) For remaining other employees who are working on daily wages, and are not covered by the direction of para (ii) hereinabove, the Government is directed to initiate the process of regular selection and recruitment, on the available vacant post as directed by the Supreme Court in the case of Umdevi (supra ). iii) For remaining other employees who are working on daily wages, and are not covered by the direction of para (ii) hereinabove, the Government is directed to initiate the process of regular selection and recruitment, on the available vacant post as directed by the Supreme Court in the case of Umdevi (supra ). iv) As and when vacancies are filled up by the Government by regular process of selection such daily wages employees, be benefited by the age relaxation to the period to which they have rendered their services, while facing regular process of selection for recruitment by them. v) The respondents should also carve out the measure to grant them additional marks/preference in the process of selection, by virtue of their experience of wo. rk on the post, while filling up the vacancies in accordance with the provisions of rules. vi) Petitions filed by petitioners, challenging the order of cancellation of regularisation, are allowed and the orders of cancellation of regularisation are hereby quashed. vii) Petitioners given minimum, pay in the corresponding scale to the post or cadre in which they are working in the concerned department, from the date of passing of this order. Such benefit be extended to them within a period of six months. viii) Petitioners who want to seek the relief of classification by approaching the Labour Court; are free to take such recourse if they are covered under the provisions of the Industrial Laws or labour Laws. ix) All these writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions. " It is submitted that subsequently, the aforesaid judgment in the case of Rakesh v. State of M. P. (supra) which had affirmed the directions issued by this Court. -. the case of Daddi Lal Yadav (supra) with additional directions in para 22, has been specifically overrulled by an order passed by a Division Bench of this Curt in wa No. 491/07 (M. P Urja Vikas Nigam Limited and others v. Radra Prasa mishra) decided on 2-5-2007 and, therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner deserves to be rejected. ( 5. ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. ( 5. ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. From a perusal of the order passed by this Court in the case of Daddi Lal Yadav (supra) which has also been passed in the petitioners case as well as the directions issued by this court in paragraph 22 in the case of Rakesh (supra) in juxta position with the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in case of Urja Vikds Nigam, it is apparent that the Division Bench of this Court has categorically stated that the judgment in the case of Rakesh (supra) does not lay down a correct law and has held that any direction for the grant of relaxation of age while filling up vacancies, direction for filling up all vacancies,conferral of benefits by granting additional marks, giving preference in the process of selection, for granting minimum pay in the corresponding pay scale are all contrary to the judgments of the Supreme court in the following terms in paragraph 38:- "38. In our considered view directions for grant or relaxation of age filing up, grant of direction to fill up the vacancies as a mandate, conferral of benefit for carving out measures to grant them additional marks, preference in the process of selection, grant of minimum pay in the corresponding scale, are contrary to judgments of the Supreme Court which have been cited hereinabove. In our humble view the said decisions have been misread and that is why the aforesaid general directions have been issued. Hence, we conclude and hold the decision rendered in the case of Rakesh (supra) does not lay down the law correctly in that regard. At this juncture we would also like to clarify another aspect i. e. the direction in paragraph 53 of Uma Devi (supra)only pertained to irregular appointments in addition to qualifiers provided therein. " ( 6. ) I am in respectful agreement and also bound by the judgment of the Division bench rendered in the case of Urja Vikas Nigam (supra) wherein it has been held that the relief of grant of minimum pay in the corresponding scale is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court. " ( 6. ) I am in respectful agreement and also bound by the judgment of the Division bench rendered in the case of Urja Vikas Nigam (supra) wherein it has been held that the relief of grant of minimum pay in the corresponding scale is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court. Apart from the judgment relied upon by the Division Bench in the case of Urja Vikas Nigam (supra), the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh (1996) 11 SCC 77 , Chief superintendent, Government Livestock Farm Hissar v. Ramesh Kumar (1997)11 SCC 363 , State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj (2003) 6 SCC 123 , State of Orissa y v Balaram Sahu (2003) 1 SCC 250 , State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh (2006) 9 SCC 321 has also held that the casual or daily wage employee is not entitled to pay in the pay-scale but is entitled to receive the minimum wages as prescribed by the State Government. ( 7. ) AS the judgment in the case of Rakesh (supra) which had specifically relied upon the judgment in the case of Daddilal- (supa), has been declared to be no longer good law by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Urja Vikas nigam (supra), the relief sought by the petitioner based on the judgment in the case of Daddilal (supra) for grant of minimum in the scale along with the daily allowance i. e. a sum of Rs. 4055/-, cannot be granted as the petitioner is entitled to receive only minimum wages at the rate prescribed by the Collector for semi skilled labour, as revised from time to time. ( 8. ) IN the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed in view of the law laid down in the case of M. P Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (supra ). In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.